TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an, Delhi was checked by the Gold Control Preventive Officers. The stocks and accounts of gold and gold ornaments were checked. Both the Partners, S/Shri Daryao Singh Jain and Bahadur Singh Jain, were present. They also produced the statutory records maintained by them under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The stock was checked in the presence of two independent witnesses and a quantity of 2386.750 gms. of gold ornaments of 12/24 carats purity valued at Rs. 3,74,843.00 was found in excess. They were seized under Section 66 of the Gold (Control) Act on the ground that they were liable for confiscation under Section 71 of the Act. It must be said that on 28-8-1982 the applicants sent a telegram to the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed. 3.  In the appeal before the Tribunal, identical contentions were raised. The Tribunal, after consideration of the submissions, found that the affidavits had been produced subsequent to the seizure and there was no reference to the existence of these affidavits even in the show cause notice. The Tribunal also held that the accounts of the certified goldsmiths were also produced after a considerable delay and the time lag of producing the evidence was very vital and affected the evidentiary value. In respect of the affidavits available on record, it was observed that there was no verification by any judicial officer. The disproportionately large quantities shown as given for repairs were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch is in the following terms :- "The seized ornaments are our stock in trade and belong to customers" and if The Tribunal was not justified in so doing, the legal consequence thereof. (iii) Whether the Tribunal, without looking into the original affidavits on record of the Collector, was justified in recording a finding on the basis of copies of the affidavit of Shri Devendra Kumar and Vimal Prasad Jain dated 7-4-1983 and 8-4-1983 placed in Appeal Paper Book on record as samples that there is no verification (of affidavits) by any judicial officer and the verification endorse-ment is signed by the dependent's themselves and, if the Tribunal was not justified, its legal effect? (iv) Having regard to the provisions of Section 83(l)(d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... any duress on Shri Daryao Singh in giving that statement? (viii) If the legal effect of question No. (vii) is that the statement of Shri Daryao Singh was briddled and involuntary, then as to whether the Tribunal was justified in disbelieving the case of the applicant and holding it to be the owner of entire seized quantity which included the ornaments belonging to customers and in recording a finding that the plea of Desh Raj having returned the stock in trade the preceding evening was not convincing? (ix) Whether the non-receipt of heavy repair work during the preceding period 5-6-1981 to 2-3-1982 relevant for judging the instant seizure effected during the subsequent period and, if not, the legal effect? (x) Whether the Tribunal....